Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Bruno Brussius

Trust Payments Ire Merchant Services Designated Activity Company

Representatives

Self-represented

People Director

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 11A of the Protection of Employment Act 1977

CA-00065056-001

29/07/2024

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967

CA-00065056-003

29/07/2024

The complainant’s employment with the respondent ended on 12 July 2024 on grounds of redundancy.

The complaints referred to the WRC on 29 July 2024 concerned the redundancy process and not receiving the correct redundancy payment.

On 21 June 2024, employees were informed of redundancies and that people at risk would be called to individual consultation meetings. 

The complainant was not provided with relevant information to determine whether it was a collective redundancy situation.

There were two further meetings between the complainant and senior management, at which the complainant’s position was confirmed redundant and the complainant expressed his wish to proceed with redundancy when he was shown details of the termination payments.  The payment sums were reduced at the second meeting on 8 July 2024.

The complainant had been coerced into accepting redundancy and that the respondent’s procedures were inadequate.

Provisions of the termination agreement in relation to a tax saver travel ticket and health insurance were not honoured by the respondent.  A travel ticket was cancelled despite being fully paid for and health insurance was not paid by the respondent, as had been agreed.

The complainant’s role was affected by a restructuring decision, communicated to relevant personnel on 25 June 2024.

When the respondent met with the complainant to advise him of his role being at risk and to look at alternative roles, the complainant confirmed that he would like to proceed with redundancy.

The complainant requested a termination date and the agreement before the second consultation meeting in relation to redundancy.  A redundancy agreement was signed by the complainant on 11 July 2024.

The respondent paid the complainant all agreed payments, including the statutory redundancy payment under the Redundancy Payments Act 1967. 

The respondent did not cancel the travel card and submitted evidence of its enquires with the travel company which confirmed the ticket was still valid and in use after the termination date. 

The respondent had extended healthcare cover for the complainant in accordance with the termination agreement.

CA-00065056-001

This complaint under the Protection of Employment Act 1977 (the “1977 Act”) related to the respondent’s redundancy procedures, which the complainant asserted were inadequate.

The complainant’s employment as Head of Risk Operation with the respondent terminated on 12 July 2024 on grounds of redundancy. 

At an individual consultation meeting, the complainant indicated that he would like to proceed with the redundancy package based on the figures presented.  Emails following that meeting refer to the complainant having volunteered for redundancy based on the termination package and that the complainant did not wish to consider alternative roles. In the emails, the complainant agrees to the termination date of 12 July 2024, queries when he would receive the termination agreement with payment dates and does not raise any issue about the process.  There followed a further meeting on 8 July 2024.    The complainant received the termination agreement after the 8 July meeting and signed same on 11 July 2024.

My jurisdiction under the 1977 Act is in relation to complaints of a contravention of section 9, 10 or 14(1) of that Act, which concern an employer’s obligations where collective redundancies are proposed or effected.

The 1977 Act applies to persons in employment in an establishment normally employing more than 20 persons. 

As per section 6(1) of the 1977 Act, collective redundancies means where in any period of 30 consecutive days the number of redundancies is:-

a)      at least five in an establishment normally employing more than 20 and less than 50 employees,

b)     at least 10 in an establishment normally employing at least 50 but less than 100 employees,

c)      at least 10% of the number of employees in an establishment normally employing at least 100 but less than 300 employees, and

d)     at least 30 in an establishment normally employing 300 or more employees. 

The respondent submitted that the average numbers employed by the respondent was 10 in each of the 12 months preceding the date of termination of the complainant’s employment and that the complainant was the only employee made redundant by the respondent in 2024.  This was not contested by the complainant.  I further note that the principal activity of the respondent company is to administer employees in the Dublin office.

Based on the information before me, I am not satisfied that the 1977 Act applied to the termination of the complainant’s employment on grounds of redundancy.

Accordingly, I find that this complaint under the 1977 Act is not well founded.

CA-00065056-003

The complainant received severance payments in accordance with a notice of redundancy document relating to the termination of the complainant’s employment.

The complainant confirmed that one of the severance payments detailed was in respect of the complainant’s entitlement to a lump sum payment under the Redundancy Payments Act 1967, that he had received the said statutory lump sum payment and did not take issue with same.  The complainant confirmed that his complaint concerned other aspects of the notice and agreement on termination which related to benefits of health insurance and an annual travel ticket.

I am not satisfied that the complainant’s complaints in relation to health insurance and travel benefits fall within the scope of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967 as they do not concern an appeal of a decision of the respondent under the Act.  

In the circumstances, I do not uphold the appeal under the Redundancy Payments Act 1967.

CA-00065056-001 (Protection of Employment Act 1977)

For the reasons set out above, I find that this complaint is not well founded.

CA-00065056-003 (Redundancy Payments Act 1967)

For the reasons set out above, I do not uphold the appeal.

Redundancy – Procedures – Collective redundancies – Statutory lump sum entitlement – Termination benefits